Breaking: Pelosi Introduces Articles of Impeachment

This is Jay Sekulow in breaking news.

Articles of impeachment have been introduced in the House of Representatives. Live from Washington, D.C., Jay Sekulow live. Phone lines are open for your questions right now. Call 1-800-684-3110.

That's 1-800-684-3110. And now, Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, Jay Sekulow. Hi, everybody. Welcome to the broadcast. Well, we do have breaking news on this. Eight days before President-elect Biden is sworn into office, the House of Representatives have introduced articles of impeachment, an article of impeachment, actually, against the President of the United States. This is not a rerun, a repeat of the previous broadcast. This is a brand new resolution that has been introduced to the United States House of Representatives.

My understanding is that at this point, it has over 200 sponsors, more to be added. It looks like that unless something happens, that this article of impeachment will be acted on by as early as tomorrow or Wednesday. They introduced this article of impeachment. At the same time, there was an attempt for the House to pass a resolution to demand that the Vice President implement the 25th Amendment to the United States Constitution. This is a very serious and somber day for the country, again. And we have to look at this both from a political perspective and a legal perspective, and also I think the paramount perspective here is what's in the best interest of the country. Look, the events that took place last week on the Capitol were horrific.

Let me be clear. That was not civil disobedience. That wasn't civil protest. What took place on Capitol Hill was terrorism, domestic terrorism.

Of course, it was a host of federal crimes involved. Vandalism, destruction of property, life and limb of individuals threatened, people murdered, some have said insurrection. So this is not a comparable to a civil protest or even acts of civil disobedience. Blocking the doorway entrance to the Capitol would be illegal, but it doesn't reach the level of insurrection. Now, whether this meets those legal standards is not what we're going to delve into today. What we have to delve into today is the reality that this is now upon our country.

And how does this work? So I'm going to go right to Than Bennett in Washington, D.C., who's right across the street from the Capitol at our offices there. And Than, what is the process right now? So the process right now, as you mentioned, Jay, the article of impeachment has been drafted and introduced in the House.

The primary author was Congressman Cicilline. Obviously, it's Speaker Pelosi's authorization that gets it introduced into the House. We have confirmation that it has indeed been dropped, what they call, into the hopper.

It's where you put new pieces of legislation that are being introduced. That has now happened. Jay, it really is up to the Speaker now when she wants to call it up. She does not have to go through the Judiciary Committee.

They can report that out. And Chairman Nadler has said that he is willing to do that. Just like you, I'm hearing that she would be open to considering it as soon as tomorrow, maybe as late as Wednesday. Like you also said, she does not believe that the Vice President is going to initiate the 25th Amendment.

So there's a lot of steps involved here, Jay. But just to give you the first one, the ball right now is in Speaker Pelosi's court. If she decides to put this on the floor of the House, the next question is timing. Does she do that tomorrow?

Does she do that Wednesday? We can get to the posture that the Senate is in in a minute. It's a little bit complicated. But right now, we're waiting to see what Speaker Pelosi wants to do as far as timing. We only have 40 seconds left here and you're remote today. But obviously, this is important enough to come on. What's your sense of this? Can Jordan not hear me?

All right, we'll come back to Jordan after the break. Andy, quickly, somber, serious, serious accusation. It's a serious accusation. I mean, the language of it says that he incited violence against the government of the United States and that he engaged in violent, destructive acts. All of these things are serious accusations.

Yeah, so the question is going to be how are they met? And also the question that's got to be asked is, is this the time for an impeachment when the President is literally out of office in eight days? We're going to take your calls and comments as well, 1-800-684-3110.

We'll be back with more in a moment. The challenges facing Americans are substantial at a time when our values, our freedoms, our constitutional rights are under attack. It's more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts, in Congress and in the public arena. And we have an exceptional track record of success.

But here's the bottom line. We could not do our work without your support. We remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms.

That remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org where you can learn more about our life-changing work.

Become a member today. ACLJ.org. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, the Planned Parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life.

Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. All right, if you're just joining us, let me update to what's happened here. Just moments ago, the House of Representative has introduced for the second time, an article of impeachment against the President of the United States, President Trump. It is one article of impeachment. The article focuses in on, and I'll read you from the Article One, which they call incitement of insurrection. The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment.

And by the way, that's true. So the House of Representatives, remember the power to impeach rests in the House of Representatives. Conviction or trial, the adjudication of the impeachment article, rests in the Senate. So it says that you'll have the sole power of impeachment in the House, that's true, and that the President shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and then it says, and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanor.

Then they incorporate Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits any person who has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States from holding any office under the United States. So Jordan, let me go to you first on this and get your sense of this is very narrowly tailored, very direct article of impeachment here. Yeah, I still think that the big issue is not so much that the House would have votes to impeach, because as you said, they have the sole power to impeach. Democrats have the majority.

It's where it goes. And this talk of impeaching now and not having a trial potentially for until the first 100 days is over for the incoming President, Joe Biden, and that's so that he would be able to set up a cabinet. So why on earth would we put the country through that? And I think there's only one answer.

There's only one answer. It's because Nancy Pelosi said it on TV. She said one of the driving factors of this impeachment is not just to remove the President, but is to make sure that he can't run for office again. And that is part of the punishment that can come with being convicted.

And it's interesting that you can be convicted. You have to have two thirds. So you've got to have 67 votes that will require 17 Republicans in the U.S. Senate.

But let's say that happened. Then you get to that question of disqualification from running for federal office. There's a debate about whether or not you can just do that with a majority vote. And again, this is something that has been key for the House, for the Democrats in particular, is not just to remove the President, but to prevent him from seeking office again in four years. What's also interesting about this is that the way it's set up, when you impeach a sitting President, the Chief Justice of the United States serves as you saw last year.

It was just this week last year that we were getting ready to go. And John Roberts, the Chief Justice of the United States, serves as the presiding officer when you try the President of the United States, not a President of the United States. So the question then becomes on the a President of the United States, assuming legally you can then still try him. Articles of impeachment have been introduced. Can he be tried after he's out of office? And I think their scholarship is debating on that.

But let's assume you can. I'm not sure John Roberts has to be the presiding officer. I think the Senate may, Andy, be able to set its rules on that because they are the ones that determine the rules here. And by the way, so you understand, by the time that this would actually get to trial, if it were to follow any realistic plan, it would be when Chuck Schumer was the, Senator Schumer was the majority leader of the Senate.

That's a correct analysis, Jay. You know, the Senate sets the rules with respect to these matters. And of course, if he is not the President at the time, President Trump would not have to be tried, as you said. I could see an argument being made, would not have to be tried by the Chief Justice of the United States.

It could be someone else who is the presiding officer. And all these things raise complex issues that create fodder for scholars to determine whether or not and how we proceed. Wes, let me ask you this question because there's a lot of healing in the land talk. And I'm just, you know, I'm wondering how this heals the land. And you're a pastor. I mean, we're not just talking about it, Brian.

You're legally trained as well and you're currently in the United States Army, retired. But I'm talking to you as a pastorally here. Sure, sure. Andy and I were just talking about this before radio today. You know, in our, in both of our churches, we are taught and there are actually prayers written for the nation and its leaders. And this past week, those prayers for the nation and its leaders for both of us became a lot more serious.

And you pray a lot more earnestly. But yeah, looking at this whole impeachment thing, first of all, there's no way to overstate how serious what took place at the Capitol last week is. I mean, under their duties as part of the 12th Amendment, the Vice President and the Congress were gathering to count the Electoral College votes. That is their sworn duty. And so the fact that the attack took place while that was happening by every indication means they were trying to stop that.

And that is a serious charge. What happened last week was not patriotism. As you said, it was terrorism. But on the other hand, my prayer and my hope, and it's not happening so far, is that somehow the Democrat leadership, if you will, would accept victory by trying to put as much of this behind us as we can and celebrating who we really are as Americans and bring healing and peace. And at this point, they are not doing that, even though they know that there's no way they can bring this to the Senate before the inauguration. It seems to be, especially on the part of the House of Representatives and Nancy Pelosi, revenge. And the unity and the healing of the American people be damned.

And that's so sad. Yeah. I've wondered, Thanh, on the timing. I mean, practically speaking, I think the earliest the Senate comes back in is the 19th, correct? Unless all 100 of them are going to come back. Right.

Jordan touched on this. The Senate is currently in pro forma session and they got into that posture, Jay, by unanimous consent. And that is important because in order to come back before January 19th, they would have to put forward another unanimous consent or the President would have to request their session for purposes of an impeachment trial. Obviously, that's not going to happen quickly enough. So the only way they could get back in a posture to begin the trial is unanimous consent of the United States and of the Senate.

I'm with Jordan on this. I don't think that is going to happen. So realistically, that means they reconvene on the 19th. And even if the House and the Senate both move very quickly to fulfill their role in the process of getting those managers sent over to present the articles, the soonest a trial would start in that scenario, Jay, is January 20th at one o'clock after Joe Biden has been inaugurated. And by the way, after the two Georgia senators are seated as well. That's probably going to happen sometime shortly after January the 15th. So they would be seated there as soon as the Senate came formally back into session. So again, to Jordan's point about the timing, this could all be over on January 20th. If they were to wait until then, it would obviously extend out further. And if they were to wait to the 100 days into the administration, you're talking about May.

Jay, I sure hope this comes to an end before May. You know, what's interesting here is that I think it was January 20th, Jordan, when we sat down in the Senate chambers to begin, maybe it was the 21st, the actual impeachment last year. This is a very different case though, and a very different argument being made. There in the situation previously, remember it was about a phone call to the President of Ukraine. And there was all kinds of executive privilege issues and executive power and separation of powers and what's the authority of the President of the United States on international affairs. This is, and we were successful in that impeachment. This case is different, Jordan, in the way they have drafted this article.

That's right. And remember then it was a completely partisan impeachment, not a single Republican in the House of Representatives joined the impeachment vote. So from a start, it was already flawed when you look at impeachments and no President has actually been convicted in an impeachment trial. And when you look back in history, there's only one case where someone, where impeachment was still going when they were, they had resigned from office and ultimately the Senate just dropped the case because they were no longer in office. That was a judge. A judge, a federal judge is different than a President because of what comes with being a former President. It's not just the yearly stipend, but it's also the secret service protection, a very large travel stipend as well for the rest of your life.

And so along with that secret service, but it's also, again, that ability to run. But I think the difference here is you would see not a ton, but some Republican support in the House for this kind of direct impeachment, this resolution specifically. And these are this one article, if you will, and then we know that there is some support in the U.S. Senate for this. We don't know that they could get to 17 Republicans.

And I think it becomes much tougher as you get into if they try to do this. Well, let's Joe Biden, let him be President without this hanging over for 100 days. And then when he's basically got everything figured out, we'll shut down the business of the country because that's what happens if you all remember, folks. And we'll just have a trial in the U.S. Senate of a former President. We're going to bring Donald Trump back up to the forefront again. And you think about that as one, as a Democrat, is that the best strategy?

Is it really worth it if it's very difficult to get to 67? History has shown that. And then, too, to put the country through that, we're still going to be dealing with covid. We're still going to be dealing with a lot of businesses hurting. We're still going to be dealing with trying to get past this incident that occurred and trying to heal the nation to then restart that whole conversation again and act like we can just wait for 100 days, go back to kind of normal and then come right back to that. To me, it's just it's just very bizarre.

And they're not thinking this through as a as a as a kind of as a movement. All right. We're taking we're taking a break when we come back. We're going to have your questions and comments and also encourage you to share that if you're on any of our social media platforms, share this with your friend and make sure you subscribe to Facebook and to YouTube and our other platforms. We've got a special video we're running after this. We'll be right back. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected.

Is there any hope for that culture to survive? And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support and the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, Planned Parenthood's role in the abortion industry and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life.

Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. The challenges facing Americans are substantial at a time when our values, our freedoms, our constitutional rights are under attack. It's more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts, in Congress and in the public arena. And we have an exceptional track record of success.

But here's the bottom line. We could not do our work without your support. We remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms.

That remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life changing work. Become a member today, ACLJ.org. So let me get everybody kind of up to date with what we have here.

I think it's important to understand. Articles of impeachment have been introduced in the House of Representatives. Now, Than, it's possible that they are acting on as early as today or tomorrow, correct? Yes, I think tomorrow would be the first time that they would actually take them up, but they're active, Jay.

They were introduced this morning during the pro forma session. There's one article of impeachment for incitement of insurrection that rely, of course, on the facts of what took place that horrible day last week. They also point to the 14th Amendment, Section 3, which talks about the disqualification clause. It's the disqualification clause of the United States Constitution. And it says that no person shall be a senator, representative of Congress or elector of President and vice President or hold any office under the United States or any state who, and then you read down to it, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

In other words, the argument is that what took place during the events leading up to the attack on the United States Capitol, that that process, not just the act itself, but the process leading up to that constituted an incitement for insurrection. Andy, that's the legal theory they're going with, but understand everyone, it's not a legal process. It is a political process.

That's right, Jay. What impeachment is, is what the House of Representatives at any particular time in history defines as a high crime and misdemeanor. And it's not a legal definition. It is a political definition that is made by members of the House of Representatives based upon acts that they feel are impeachable offenses. And as I say, it's a political decision. It's not a legal decision. What is a high crime and misdemeanor is determined, as I said, at any time in history based upon what the majority of the House of Representatives decides. Now, of course, the Senate has to try the case and has to convict or acquit, but it is a political process all the way through.

OK, so I'm going to go to Wes, then Jordan. So, Wes, as you're looking at the articles of impeachment, you see the tone difference between the Ukraine situation that we dealt with this very month last year, one year ago, and this are very different. Yeah, absolutely. You know, this is much more if you believe the charges black and white. They're accusing the President of violation of his constitutional duty, his oath that the laws be faithfully executed. That is a very, very serious charge. It's even though impeachment is a political act. This was not a criminal trial. This is a political trial, if you will. But still, that's a very, very serious charge that is not nebulous like what we witnessed last year. On foreign policy.

On foreign policy and on a phone call. If they can prove to enough members of the House of Representatives that he actually. Well, the House of Representatives, I think, is a foregone conclusion. It is foregone.

I assume they're going to be. Yeah, exactly. But in the process, though, they're saying that he actually incited this.

He incited an attack on the United States government at the Capitol building. That is a black and white serious charge. Well, it's a serious charge. Now, the arguments are going to be, I mean, it's not a self-proving charge, though.

I assume people need to understand. I mean, the due process, there are some due process requirements here now. The argument is going to be, and I know I heard that Alan Dershowitz may well be one of the lawyers defending, maybe the lawyer defending the President.

This is not going to be a lot of factual analysis here. It's going to be a legal analysis. And Professor Dershowitz, of course, is known as a First Amendment lawyer, among other things. I mean, he's a criminal defense lawyer as well. But I'm sure that will be the defense that will probably be raised if it gets that far.

And Jordan, that's the big question here. Does the Senate, or what happens if they delay it 90 days, what happens? Do they try to negotiate around this and just say, get it, it's behind us and get it over?

What do you think? They have to accept it. So, I mean, that's the part of the Constitution, is that those articles are delivered.

They have to do something with it. The question is, remember, it will be Chuck Schumer, will be the majority leader. But this is a 50-50 Senate, and this is a two-thirds majority that's required to convict.

So Kamala Harris and her role as a vice President at that time, or President of the Senate, has no role in playing like a tie-breaking vote because it takes more than 51. So you've got a situation where they would have to figure out how to deal with it. And I think that if the House delivers this, so if this moves forward, I mean, could they dismiss it? Of course they could. I'm sure they could come up with rules, and Thayus talked about they make up kind of the rules they want to govern the impeachment trial. So could they offer up an immediate dismissal?

I think they could. But at that point, I think there'd be too much pressure on the Democrats. The problem I see is that if the Pelosi and the Democrats push this out of the House, there is going to be a trial. And then before that trial, there's going to be a constitutional legal battle over whether or not you can even move forward with that trial, considering this is a former President, and the Constitution talks about active Presidents, active officials. And the only precedent we have for someone who a trial began, the person had the ability to leave office and did. This President at this point would not.

He would have already served out his entire term and left normally peaceful transition of power like he has discussed. And so that to me, it sets up two battles constitutionally in the courts and then second in the Senate on exactly how to move forward with this trial. Because again, as you pointed out, that it's not like the impeachment we all worked on, where you've got a number of facts, tons of information, these phone calls and transcripts, all those people that were interviewed, remember, by the House of Representatives publicly, some privately and behind the scenes.

And then all of that information coming to light. And even that was for impeachment purposes, quick. This situation, which only involves one article and really one significant charge, could be rather quick, I guess, on the due process side.

But it would be 100 days later. The further you get away from the actual events, the further you get away from the House coming with any record at all, which it doesn't seem they will. This is their entire record would be the article of impeachment. I think, again, it just makes it so tough on the country. I don't really care where you are when I'm talking about this, whether you'd like to see that President impeached and thrown out right now because of what happened or not.

That won't happen under this scenario. And so what we're going to be dealing with is, do you want your U.S. Senate tied up for a couple of weeks, at least 100 days after Joe Biden becomes President, which is how they're talking about doing it, on impeaching a former President? And if you don't like President Trump, why do you want to give him this kind of attention right out of the bat, right at the beginning? It will actually kind of be the discussion of all discussions, because those previous legal battles, dad, about whether or not you could even have this trial will have to happen before that 100 days. So he will be in the news, like it or not, if you're Joe Biden or a Democrat, for the first 100 days of your presidency.

And it's going to be more interesting news than putting up former bureaucrats as the next CIA director. We're going to get into the second half hour of the broadcast. If you don't get the full hour, by the way, go over to ACLJ.org or to Facebook or to YouTube or to all the other social media platforms we're on and make sure when you're there, you subscribe. On Facebook, you follow and like and get notifications.

On YouTube, you just hit subscribe and you hit the bell, and this way you'll get notifications. We got another 30 minutes. I'm going to get into what the trial would probably look like, what the issues will be and how the process will move forward.

And what does it mean politically for Republicans as well as Democrats? We've got a lot more to discuss. Look, folks, this has been a horrific week for our nation, and I want to just say we need to pray for the people that lost their lives and their families. This is horrific.

The Capitol Hill police officer was crushed to death. Confederate flags inside the United States of America. People wearing Camp Auschwitz shirts in the Capitol of the United States.

We'll be back with more. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts, in Congress and in the public arena. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life changing work.

Become a member today. ACLJ.org Talking about freedom. Talking about freedom.

We will fight for the right to live in freedom. Live from Washington, D.C., Jay Sekulow live. And now, Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, Jay Sekulow.

Welcome back to Sekulow Radio. Folks, we're talking about obviously what is now breaking news, and that is that the House of Representatives has, in fact, issued an article of impeachment to the President of the United States. It's been introduced in the House of Representatives. One count, incitement of insurrection. They rely in part on the 14th Amendment Disqualification Clause at Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. It reads as follows.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress or Elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States. And then you go down and it says, if they have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, and given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. And that is the basis upon which they're doing it. The charges focus in on the attack on the United States Capitol and allegations that the President of the United States and others were inciting this action.

That's the basis upon which this is to go forward. Now, to put it in perspective, this is a very different case than what I dealt with as Impeachment Counsel last year when I was dealing with the President's executive authority under Article 2 of the United States Constitution in the conduct of foreign affairs when he made a phone call to Ukraine, the President of Ukraine. That was a separation of powers case. That was an Article 2 authority case, authority of the President, especially when it comes to foreign policy. This is charges of incitement to insurrection.

It's a very, very different case. Now, there will be arguments on both sides. The articles of impeachment, though, Thanh, have been submitted.

What happens next? Yeah, as soon as tomorrow they could be called up on the floor of the House of Representatives. There would be debate on the floor, although it would not be in all likelihood, Jay, nearly as lengthy as a Senate trial. And essentially, at the end of the debate, if the House voted to invoke those articles of impeachment, they would be ready to send over the Senate. But, Jay, I think it's important.

I know people know this from the last time around, but it's important to reiterate this. Both the House and the Senate then have a partnership role in how those articles get to the Senate. The Senate first has to be in a posture where it's ready to receive those articles, and as it stands right now, without a unanimous consent, they won't be in that posture until January the 19th at the earliest. Now, even when they're in that posture, though, Jay, you talked about this a little bit, but Speaker Pelosi has to decide when she actually wants to send the notice of the managers, the resolution formalizing the impeachment to the United States Senate. And that is what James Clyburn was talking about. He said that even if they're invoked tomorrow or Wednesday, they may wait to send them over.

But here, I think, is the key point on timing. Once the Senate's in the right posture, and once Speaker Pelosi decides to send them over, by the way, if she does, maybe she decides not to, if she does, if she sends them to the United States Senate, then at that point, the Senate really is bound. They're bound to start the trial the next day, starting at one o'clock. Now, they could offer a motion to dismiss and be done with it quickly, although Leader Schumer would be in charge of the chamber right now, right then.

Yeah, I don't think that would happen. So you would have a trial. And I do think one final point on the timing, Jay, I think it's important for people to understand the role of the of a United States senator.

I mean, you made this case to United States senators in the past. They have a duty to listen to the evidence. They have a duty to make sure that the charge is able to mount a defense. And then they have a duty to make a decision.

There's really no wiggle room in the Constitution for them. That's their charge. Yeah, the procedures are set forward. I mean, they are clear.

And Jordan, we got less than a minute here, Jordan. The procedures are clear. So there'll be, you know, they'll put on their case, the managers would, and that if they do this and then the President's defense team would put up their case. Just like last time, except different lawyers. The only thing I would say is that we're talking about something fairly unprecedented, which is that that trial would be ongoing for a President that's already left office. I know there's arguments on both sides of this, but I think that that argument alone will be a separate legal challenge. And we don't even know if the Supreme Court will get involved or if they will deem it to be like a political question that the Senate has to resolve. So will they have to resolve that before they even begin the trial? That's interesting, too. I mean, is there a vote that has to be taken on that, whether or not they can do that under their rules?

I think that certainly it will be raised. Yeah. There's another question. Whether does when the President's out of office, does the chief justice preside?

I don't think so. Under the Constitution, we'll talk about all this when we come back from the break. The challenges facing Americans are substantial at a time when our values, our freedoms, our constitutional rights are under attack. It's more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. For decades now, the ACLU has been on the front lines protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts, in Congress and in the public arena. And we have an exceptional track record of success.

But here's the bottom line. We could not do our work without your support. We remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms.

That remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life changing work.

Become a member today. ACLJ.org. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life.

Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. An article of impeachment for incitement of insurrection has been raised against the President. As I said, very different than what I defended last year on behalf of the President of the United States Senate. This is a completely different issue. That issue that I dealt with was a constitutional issue of separation of powers and the power of Executive Two, Article Two of the United States Constitution, the power of the presidency.

We were successful on this. This is very different. This is not a question of Presidential power. This is a question of fact and law, although law is not, this is a political trial, not a legal trial. And that is whether there was, in fact, leading up to the act of terrorism that took place in the United States Capitol. Have you watched that, folks?

Have you seen it? Did you see the vigilante mob violence inside the people's house? Did you see them breaking through the very floor of the United States Senate where I stood, where Jordan stood, where Andy stood, respecting the institutions of that office even when we were defending the President then? And can anybody that is a patriot of the United States say what took place in the Capitol was okay?

Because it wasn't. Not only was it illegal, it was an insurrection against the United States. It was an attempted interference with the constitutional process. I remember when I was in the well of that Senate and someone got up and started screaming and the whole place came to an end and the security moved to remove the individual. I've been in the Supreme Court when someone stands up while you're arguing their case and starts interfering with your argument. This was not that.

And those are, by the way, illegal too. These people were chanting, hang Mike Pence. They were threatening to kill the Speaker of the House. And I don't care if you're a supporter of the President, a supporter of President-elect Biden or who you supported or what your politics are. I don't care.

That was not right. That was dangerous for the country, for my grandkids to have lawlessness in the Capitol. And I just hope and pray as this is fully investigated by the legal authorities, I'm not talking about the House and the Senate. That's politics. We find out who did all this, what groups were involved, and to the fullest extent of the law, they are prosecuted for rebellion and insurrection against the United States because that's what it was. I've never seen anything like that in my life in the United States of America. Don't try to compare this to any other protest or what took place on the streets of Washington this summer.

Nobody went into the Capitol to destroy property and kill people. People are dead because of this. Let's not for a moment start casting blame on other protest movements. Or was it somebody else infiltrating? The clear identity of who these people are is very well known because you find it by just going to what we're on right now, social media. They bragged about it. They took pictures with their feet on Nancy Pelosi's office. This was a sad and dark day for the United States of America. Now the country is facing this. Articles of impeachment against the sitting President of the United States who leaves office in eight days. And you have to ask yourself on that front, assuming everything that they allege was true, assuming it was all true, is it politically, for the best interests of the country, the right thing to put the country through this?

That is the real question here. Not whether the House can vote to impeach. They will if they go forward. I mean, they've introduced it. Will the Senate convict?

I don't know. There will be bipartisan support for this impeachment in the House of Representatives, I suspect. Jordan, what do you think? Absolutely. Without a doubt, I think there will be certainly at least one or two, maybe more, members of the House.

You've already had one. Congressman Kissinger said he supports impeachment. So unless he had some problems with this specific article, I don't know why he would not be coming on board, as well as maybe some others that are not as well-known names, necessarily. But then we also know there is support in the United States Senate, at least for the idea of impeachment. Now, they're all going to hold their final determination based off what's presented to them, if that's what we get to.

But you know, Dad, I go back to what you just said. We're still going through this as a country. People are, and so this keeps bringing it back, not to kind of bring unity or resolve, but to create division. Like it or not, that's what happens in a trial like this. And if you continue this on for another 112 days, we're talking about, or 110 days, and then the Senate begins this. I mean, to me, it's just so damaging to the country that for whatever you care about Donald Trump, this or that, and what you expect, you know, you would hope comes of this impeachment.

The truth is that, think about your country first, and I think their calculus has to be this. Do Democrats and enough Republicans, because that's what it will take, it will take 17 Republicans, if they can even try someone after they've served their full term. Didn't resign, served their full term, and then are out of office. If they can, are there 17 who are not so concerned about impeaching the President for removal because he's already gone? But is it that second point, is it because they're so concerned that he has such a big movement behind him that he will, has a good chance of running again, and a pretty good, a decent shot at becoming President again, and they're so concerned about that.

And I hope that's not all just politics with Democrats concerned that he would be a tough candidate if they, so they'd like to get him out of the way, or Republicans would say, oh, he'd be a tough candidate, and so it'd be nice to get Donald Trump out of the way. The only way you make that vote is if you really believe what these articles allege, is that this is someone who, by that speech, engaged in insurrection against the United States. There's also an independent investigation going on right now by the U.S. Attorney's Office, or the D.C. Attorney General in Washington, D.C., Andy, as to the people involved in this. Well, there ought to be, because those people are potentially guilty of crimes against the United States, against the Congress, burglary, and that means simply entering with intent to commit a felony, that doesn't mean necessarily theft, destruction of government property, breaking and entering, all sorts of federal, state, or District of Columbia local crimes they might be guilty of, and they know who they are.

They've got them on tape, they've got them on video, so the Attorney General for the District of Columbia is looking at those offenses. And I want to echo what you said, Jay, this was a horrible day for the United States. This was an attack on the citadel of democracy by people who have no respect for the Constitution or the statutes or laws of the United States. Taking shields and breaking glass and going in, sitting in the well of the House, sitting in the well in the Senate chamber seat, these are horrible events that really do have consequences for those actors who committed them.

Wes? I mean, it was just a horrible thing. We have not witnessed this kind of an attack by citizens of the United States against the United States since the American Civil War. And the timing of this was deliberate. This was not a riot, it was not a demonstration. They attacked the U.S. Capitol as the Vice President and the Congress are counting electoral votes.

That timing is not incidental. Many of the demonstrators carried plastic cuffs because their intention was to take the leaders of our nation and keep them as hostages and handcuff them. They actively sought for the Vice President apparently in order to execute him.

This was unconscionable, and Andy's right. They need to be arrested, they need to be prosecuted, and they need to go to prison. America, we simply do not tolerate this kind of lawlessness and insurrection. The seriousness of what happened last week can't be overstated. No. Look, obviously it's a whole different level of issue here. And I know some are saying, were the police adequate to do this? Obviously not. I mean, you know, there's scenes of police officers opening barricades. I can't even figure what that was.

Again, I don't want to cause harm to the police. I wasn't there. They were overwhelmed, obviously. I mean, the lack of preparation for this is another mess that has to be investigated, and I think that the Congress is doing that. But as we get to the last segment of this broadcast, a new article of impeachment against the President of the United States. This is not about foreign policy or a call to a foreign leader. This is an allegation, an allegation of incitement for insurrection. Now remember, the House can vote to impeach, but the trial takes place in the United States Senate. And as Jordan said earlier, it requires two-thirds of the Senate to convict.

We're going to stay live on Facebook and YouTube when we go into this break, so we can answer some of the questions that have come in from you all on those platforms. Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless deserve to be protected is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice to defend the right to life. We've created a free, powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn.

It's called Mission Life. It will show you how you are personally impacting the pro-life battle through your support. And the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, how we're fighting for the rights of pro-life activists, the ramifications of Roe v. Wade 40 years later, play on parenthood's role in the abortion industry, and what Obamacare means to the pro-life movement. Discover the many ways your membership with the ACLJ is empowering the right to life.

Request your free copy of Mission Life today online at ACLJ.org slash gift. The challenges facing Americans are substantial at a time when our values, our freedoms, our constitutional rights are under attack. It's more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice. For decades now, the ACLJ has been on the front lines protecting your freedoms, defending your rights in courts, in Congress, and in the public arena. And we have an exceptional track record of success.

But here's the bottom line. We could not do our work without your support. We remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms.

That remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member, thank you. And if you're not, well, this is the perfect time to stand with us at ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work. Become a member today. ACLJ.org.

Alright, we're back. We're talking about what has now happened, which is an article of impeachment has been raised against and filed against the President of the United States. The allegation in this is incitement of insurrection. My understanding, Thanh, is there's about 200 and something co-sponsors? Yeah, it sounds like the vast majority of the Democrat caucus. We don't know exactly because it's just been introduced in the House and the House is in pro forma session, so the co-sponsors haven't been posted yet. But Jay, I would venture a guess by the time they come into regular session tomorrow, I'll be surprised if every single Democrat member of the House is not a co-sponsor. Do you think there will be Republicans voting in favor? Adam Kinzinger has already indicated that he is inclined to. Now, that was before this text came out, so unless there's something in this text that he does not think appropriate, they mentioned the Georgia situation, Jay.

Maybe that could push him off it, but if I had to guess, I would imagine at least he is in favor of this. They mentioned the phone call to the Georgia Secretary of State. During the break, we were discussing what is the political issue here, and I think why would they do this with the President coming out of office in just literally eight days? And I'm convinced it's because they want the – if it goes to the Senate, in other words, it comes out of the House and goes to the Senate for a trial, that the penalty is that you can no – if you're found guilty, it's that you can no longer hold an office of public trust or an office in the United States.

It means that Donald Trump cannot run for President again. And my sense, and Jordan, you said this earlier, my sense is that's what they're trying to do. Right. Now, to get there, you still – you've got to get to 67. The question is, for that added penalty, in the past, they have done that. After getting to 67 on impeachment, they've done that with a majority vote. They haven't required a 67 or two-thirds vote. And again, I think the big question is do they really actually get 17 Republicans because of when this trial would actually start, 100-day – especially if Clyburn is right, they're talking about the 100 days in scenario, so not even at the earliest point they could take it. So I want to go to Than because, Than, you said they only really get a day to turn around and make a decision at the U.S. Senate on the trial, but they're talking about this 100-day delay, so that would be something that I guess they would vote on?

Well, it depends. I mean, this is a shared responsibility between the House and the Senate. They are in a posture right now to be notified of the articles, Jordan, but they're not in a posture to notify the House that they're ready to receive the managers.

And there's usually some back-channel conversation about this. The soonest they could be in a posture to receive is the 19th, but Jordan, they could be preparing between now and then, and quite frankly, they would have some communication with Speaker Pelosi on when those articles would come over. The mandate on them is that once they do get the articles, they have to convene the next day at one to begin considering the matter, but if you remember the last time around, and I know you do, there was actually a little bit more of a delay because they came together in a bipartisan fashion to try to set a resolution for an organized trial. I suspect that would happen again, but the mandate, Jordan, is that they can't just artificially push it off. They have to meet the next day at one o'clock unless they come together and say, look, in order to give adequate chance for both sides to present their case, we're going to start at a little bit later date certain. There's not a lot of wiggle room there. They can still set their rules, but it's not like they can just ignore it once they receive the articles.

Wes? What we're witnessing, I think people of all sides agree, this is not good for the country, and my question is, is it necessary because he does leave office, the inauguration is nine days away. What we're witnessing is a political calculation. What I wish we were witnessing is the calculation of what is good for the country.

Instead of asking how can we keep Donald Trump from running for office again or how do we punish Donald Trump, what is the best thing for the country? And I'm not sure I know the answer to that, but that should be the calculation, not a political calculation, even though impeachment is a political act. And this in no way is to detract from or minimize the seriousness of the allegations that are being brought against the President.

Yeah. I just wonder, though, I go back to trying to look at the country, and we're trying to, you know, the election was tumultuous, there was allegations of all kinds of irregularities, and we went through all that already, and it was litigated fully in the courts, and then it was, you know, raised in state legislatures, and then finally the electors are selected, and finally the electors are seated, and then the electors' votes are delivered to the Capitol. Then the incident takes place, and it's stressing the Constitution, Andy. That's why it's putting stress.

Now, fortunately, there's play in the joints, so that Constitution can take stress. But you can't take what took place last week. I mean, it did, actually. I think maybe the most important words uttered that night at about 8 o'clock at night is when Mike Pence said, let's get back to work. I have to really say Mike Pence did a tremendous job as the President of the Senate and the presiding officer as vice President of the United States. I was most impressed with the sobriety with which he took control of the situation, a tumultuous situation that he was facing.

And when he said, he finished, and he prayed for the country and so forth, but then he said something important, and you just repeated it, let's get back to work, and he went right back to counting the electoral votes and to opening those ballots. And that's what's important. The Constitution is resilient. The Constitution is not going to fall apart. It is not in tatters. It must not ever be in tatters. This is the greatest republic that has ever existed on the face of the earth since the Roman Empire, and I think it's very important that we recognize that fact, the fact that we have got to maintain our constitutional form of government. As Benjamin Franklin said, a republic, madam, we have if you can keep it. This is going to be the test of whether we can keep it.

Well, we kept it on that day, even with all the horrific tragedies and loss of life, the republic survived, but my goodness, what a horrific moment in history. I'm going to take the last two minutes here. I'm going to go to Jordan first, and then I want everybody to kind of sum up your kind of sense of where it is.

Jordan? I think we're in a dark time, and I think this will make it that much darker, unfortunately, because it will re-divide the nation who will be talking about whether speech and words, is that enough to impeach? And then not focusing on just kind of moving forward. So I think in the worst elements of the supporters of President Trump, this just fires them back up. And the President can only say so much, and a lot of his communication abilities have been shut down. So he can make the speech to say, stop, don't do this, please don't do this, stop doing this, it's over.

But he doesn't have the same way to communicate as before because of the actions of these social media companies. So I believe that to me is that we're now going to focus not on just punishing those wrongdoers who were there in the building, responsible for murders, responsible for destruction of our U.S. Capitol, and trying to interfere with a constitutionally sanctioned electoral count with the Vice President in the room and every member of Congress, but instead going to make this about politics again. And this is what I always get back to, I don't like to make it partisan, but this is Nancy Pelosi's world we live in, and she is so partisan on every single move. So then it divides us again between Republican and Democrat, and is this just Nancy Pelosi trying to get what Nancy Pelosi has wanted since Donald Trump took the oath? Yeah.

Fan, really quick, we got like 10 seconds. Look, I think the Republic was attacked by anarchists on Wednesday, I really do, and I think we need leaders on both sides of the aisle, including President Trump, including Speaker Pelosi, to be the adults in the room and get us to January 20th. In the past, when we've been in a crisis, it has brought the nation together. My prayer is that somehow in all of this, it'll bring us together. Andy, put this behind us and grant us peace. I think that's a really good way to end this broadcast, to pray for peace, pray for our country, pray for our leaders, all of them, that they would have God's wisdom. Let's pray that God will bless and protect the United States of America. Where you can learn more about our life-changing work. Become a member today.